BRB's Public Records Blog

Online Court Records on Statewide Judicial Systems

Every state has a judicial branch that oversees that state’s trial and appellate court system. The agency's name will vary, but it is often known as the Administration Office of the Courts (AOC) or State Court Administrator’s Office.  

Knowing about this agency and its online services is important because more counties and courts are online via AOC sites than from the individual county-based systems. Consider these overall statistics about states’ judicial systems:

• 28 States Offer Online Access to Both Civil and Criminal Records
• 4 States Offer Access to Only Online Civil Records
• 16 States Have Online Access to Neither

A search from one of these court systems can be a particularly useful criminal record search tool in those states that do not permit a search at the state criminal records repository agency.

Of course, these court systems can be useful in those states that do offer access to the state criminal records repository agency because often the court data is usually much more current than from the repository – especially when not submitting fingerprints.

But just because the records are online - does that mean this site is the primary source for record searching?  The answer is a very strong  “no.”

These Systems are Not Created Equal - Know the State-by-State Variations

Anyone conducting research online must be aware that the value of a “statewide” court search varies by state. Consider these evaluation points:

• Is there a cost? Some systems offer free and paid search options. While many of the free searches are good, the adage “you get what you pay for” can certainly apply here.
• Is the search a statewide search? Some systems are said to be statewide, however, all counties may not be on the system.
• Is the throughput posted and is there uniformity? For example, one county may have cases dating back seven years, while another county may have only two years of history.
• Are Identifiers shown? The lack of identifiers to properly identify a subject varies widely from state-to-state. A lack of this is especially apparent in the free access search systems. Additionally, in some places verifiers that were previously available have been removed in recent years.
• And perhaps the most important evaluation point: Is an online search equivalent to searching onsite? The level of your due diligence and need for accuracy will determine if using an online site, that is in reality a supplemental search, is sufficient for your needs. This, of course, is true for ANY online site for ANY type of public record.

In-depth details about each state’s court system including a link to access each AOC database are contained in the Criminal Record Sources subscription product and in the Public Record Research System at https://brbpublications.com/.  

Do you need to know more about the online-onsite equivalency of a state’s AOC database or Criminal Repository? We have the only Online-Onsite Equivalency Matrix. Learn more at https://brbpublications.com/subscribers/criminal-record-sources.

The Return on Investment (ROI) of a Screening Program

Employers justify the costs associated with employment screening with the clear Return on Investment, or ROI, that these programs bring to the workplace.

Two costs are associated with a screening program. First, is the cost of the in-house time and effort needed to pursue a Safe Hiring Program; second, the cost of any outsourced services such as background checks. These costs are covered in greater detail in The Safe Hiring Manual 3rd Edition. In the meantime, let us assume as a general rule, the cost of a background screening is likely less than the cost of an employee’s salary on just his or her first day on the job. Of course, the depth of screening, and therefore the costs, will vary depending upon the job position. Screening for a janitorial position, for example, will likely cost less than that for an executive. Since executives are more highly paid, however, the cost of a screening as a percentage of salary is still less than their first-day salary.

Two Approaches to Calculating ROI

Because the purpose of background screening is to prevent harm, it is often difficult to quantify the ROI of events that did not happen. A firm hit with even a single incident of workplace violence or related legal action immediately recognizes the advantages of a Safe Hiring Program.

Method One: Making a Judgment as to the Value of Avoiding the Parade of Horribles

Assume an average background check performed by a third party firm is $50, and a firm submits 100 names to a screening firm during a twelve month period. Keep in mind that most employers only screen finalists, not all who apply. The third-party costs of this service would be $5000.

If a firm can avoid just one problem employee as a result of a background check, the $5000 cost of the screening program was more than worth it. Just one bad hire can exceed the cost of an applicant’s yearly salary. Given industry statistics that suggest up to 40% of all applicants contain potential issues, it is likely that a background check would save an employer a great deal of time, money, and grief in terms of a bad hire. Given the negative impact that even one bad hire can cause, it would appear to be a very small price to pay.

Method Two: Calculation of Benefit from Lack of Turnover

The benefits of a Safe Hiring Program can also be measured by estimating the average costs associated with a single employee turnover. An easy way to consider these costs is by building a turnover calculator that breaks down all the costs associated with having and filling a vacancy on an item-by-item basis. When the expenses involved are broken down to basics, it is easy to see how such costs can add up to a sizeable figure.

This information was taken from The Safe Hiring Manual 3rd Edition by Lester S. Rosen. For more information on this publication, please visit the BRB Bookstore or contact [email protected].

Spotting Six of the Biggest Job Applicant Lies

Although statistics vary widely, there is widespread agreement that a substantial number of resumes and applications belong in the fiction section of the bookstore. The rate of fraud can be as high as 40% and higher according to different sources. Applicants certainly have the right to put their best foot forward, and puffing their qualifications is an American tradition. But when puffing crosses the line into fabrication, an employer needs to be concerned. When you hire an applicant who uses lies and fabrication to get hired, the issue is that the same type of dishonesty will continue once they have the job. Below are six of the most common fabrications claimed by job applicants.

1. Claiming a Degree not Earned

Yes, believe it or not, applicants will make up a degree. Sometimes, they actually went to the school but never graduated. Some applicants may have had just a few credits to go and decided to award themselves the degree anyway. On some occasions, an applicant will claim a degree from a school they did not even attend. The best practice for an employer is to state clearly on the application form that the applicant should list any school they want the employer to consider. In that way, if an applicant lies, the employer can act on the lack of truthfulness regardless of whether the educational requirement is part of the job requirements.

2. Claiming a Diploma Mill or Fake Degree

A related issue to claiming an unearned degree is declaring a fake degree that can be purchased online from a Diploma Mill. Today one may obtain a degree simply by going online and using a credit card. There are even websites that will print out very convincing, fake degrees from nearly any school in America. In fact, the author obtained a degree for his dog in Business Administration from the University of Arizona—and the dog had been dead for ten years. A transcript was even obtained and the dog got a “B” in English! Some sites will even provide a phone number so an employer can call and verify the fake degree. Some of the degree mills even have fake accreditation agencies with names similar to real accreditation bodies, in order to give a fake accreditation for a fake school.

3. Previous Job Title

Applicants can easily give their career an artificial boost by “promoting” themselves to a supervisor position, even if they never managed anyone.

4. Claiming Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, or Experience They Do Not Possess

Employers normally hire based on a job description that will describe the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) needed for a job as well as the experience required. These are exactly the areas, however, where employers often find a candidate has fibbed.

5. Dates of Employment

Another concern for employers is applicants who cover up dates of employment in order to hide employment gaps. For some applicants, it may be a seemingly innocent attempt to hide the fact that it has taken awhile to get a new job. In other cases, the date fabrication can be more sinister, such as a person that spent time in custody for a crime who may be trying to hide that fact.

One caveat—there can be times when the applicant is honestly mistaken about employment dates due to having started a position as a temporary worker on a staffing firm’s payroll. An applicant may have worked at a past employer for five years, but the first year was officially an employee of a staffing vendor. In the applicant’s mind, they were there for five years. However, the official records for the company may only show employment for four years.

6. Previous Compensation

A related issue is past salary. Applicants have been known to exaggerate compensation in order to have a better starting point when negotiating the salary for the new job. However, for many employers past salary is a sensitive area and some HR professionals will ask for a written release first.

This information was taken from The Safe Hiring Manual 3rd Edition by Lester S. Rosen. For more information on this publication, please visit the BRB Bookstore.

Court Records on Judicial Statewide Systems

The online court records obtainable from this venue are widespread, often free, and overall very worthwhile.

Every state has a judicial branch that oversees that state’s trial and appellate court system. The name of the agency will vary, but it is often known as the Administration Office of the Courts (AOC) or State Court Administrator’ Office.  

Knowing about this agency and their online services is important because thru the AOC more counties and courts are online than from the individual county-based systems. Consider these overall statistics about state judicial systems and the state courts at the county level, from the Public Record Research System:

• 27 States Offer Online Access to Both Civil and Criminal Records Statewide
• 5 States Offer Online Access to Partial Statewide Access
• 5 States Offer Access to Only Online Civil Records Statewide
• 1 State Offers Access to Only Online Criminal Records Statewide
• 13 States Have Online Access to Neither

The specific states and sites with web access are profiled in Chapter 6 of The Manual to Online Public Records 4th Edition.

These Systems are Not Created Equal - Know the State-by-State Variations

Online researchers must be aware that there are many nuances to these searches. The value of a statewide court search varies by state. Consider these evaluation points:

• Pay or free or both? While some of the free searches are good, the adage you pay for what you get can certainly apply here.
• Is the search a statewide search? All counties may not be on the system.
• Is the throughput posted and is there uniformity? For example, one county may have cases dating back for seven years, while another county may have only two years of history.
• Are identifiers shown? The lack of identifiers to properly identify a subject varies widely from state-to-state. A lack of is especially apparent on the free access search systems.  
• And perhaps the most important evaluation point: Is an online search equivalent to searching onsite? The level of your due diligence and need for accuracy will determine if using an online site that is in reality a supplemental search is sufficient for your needs. This of course is true for ANY online site for ANY type of public record.

This article is taken from The Manual to Online Public Records 4th Edition by Mike Sankey and Cynthia Hetherington. For more information on this publication, please visit The BRB Bookstore or Contact [email protected].

Indiana GEDs

The Indiana Department of Workforce Development has outsourced all requests for GED verifications, transcripts, and diploma copies to a designated vendor - Diploma Sender.  The state agency will no longer process any requests.
Diploma Sender is found at www.diplomasender.com
 
All requests must be ordered online. Most results are available in 1 to 3 days. The fee is $5.00 for an employment verification letter and $15.00 for a duplicate GED certificate or transcript. Diploma Sender will not process direct requests from employers, schools, or third parties. However the student can still direct Diploma Master to provide the document to the third party. The third party must first be registered and then must be provided an authentication code by the test taker.
 
Email questions to [email protected] responses are promised in one business day. Diploma Sender personnel will not answer the telephone.
 

More States Step Up Fight Against Diploma Mills

On March 24, 2011, Idaho's "Anti-Diploma Mill" bill was unanimously passed by the Idaho State Senate. To read a recent article about this and efforts by other states, visit the Accredibase Reports web page at www.accredibase.com/report.

Accredibase Report for 2011 Reveals 48% Increase in Fake Universities

The 2011 Annual Accredibase Report of diploma and accreditation mill activity has revealed an astounding 48% increase worldwide in the number of known diploma and accreditation mills in the past year alone.  As the Internet is the primary home for these bogus education and accreditation providers, little action is taken to stop them from helping unscrupulous candidates deceive unsuspecting employers. The Accredibase Report examines the current status of the diploma mill situation and considers what can be done to protect the public and businesses.

U.S - The King of Diploma Mills
According to the 2011 report, the U.S. remains the world's fake college capital. This year has seen a 20% increase in known diploma mills in the US, with the number rising from 810 to 1,008. While more than 40% percent of the diploma mills operate in California, Hawaii, Washington and Florida, the Report reveals that District of Columbia has seen the sharpest increase among US states with 74%, rising from 19 to 33 mills over the past year. High school diploma mills are of particular concern in the United States and appear to be a growing segment in this unscrupulous market as well.

To view or download the Report, visit  www.accredibase.com/report.